LONDON, Sept 10 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Getting poisoned with Novichok gets you noticed. That’s the unfortunate reason for the world’s increased interest in Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition politician and fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin who almost died last year after ingesting the nerve agent. The 45-year-old blogger and activist has campaigned against Putin for most of the Russian leader’s two decades in power. He’s organised protests, exposed corruption and tried to upset the ruling United Russia party’s success in elections, becoming the central actor in a fragmented opposition which now faces a ruthless government crackdown. After the poisoning his wife took him to Germany for treatment. There he accused individuals working for the Russian security services of trying to kill him. Leaving Russia caused him to break the parole conditions from an earlier conviction he said was politically motivated. Still, he returned. In February he went to prison. In “Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?” academics Jan Matti Dollbaum, Morvan Lallouet and Ben Noble explore the tactics the Yale-educated activist has used to try to shake up Russian politics. He initially borrowed the approach of campaigning investors by buying shares in large Russian enterprises, many of which are state-owned. In a balanced and insightful analysis, the authors describe how he attended the annual general meetings of companies like Surgutneftegaz (SNGS.MM) to ask awkward questions such as “who owns the oil group?” and “why is the dividend so low?” In a 2010 investigation into Transneft (TRNF_p.MM), Navalny claimed at least $4 billion was stolen by people he didn’t name in the state pipeline monopoly’s construction of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. In a rare win, a Moscow court ordered the company to disclose more information in 2011. Unlike U.S. activist investors like Elliott or Third Point, Navalny’s end objective wasn’t to improve the performance of these companies. His aim was to embarrass the people who ran them and focus attention on how much public money was being lost to graft. This approach helped him build an online following, but despite some small achievements, he failed to change how the companies were run or dent the fortunes of those close to Putin. Navalny’s tactical voting strategy has arguably proved more irksome. In legislative elections later this month, for example, his team will tell Russians how to vote if they want to eject the ruling United Russia candidate, even if it means voting for a Communist or another member of the Kremlin-tolerated opposition. United Russia has responded by putting up candidates with the same name, and similar appearance, to Navalny’s choices. An increasingly heavy-handed government crackdown is testament to his effectiveness. Earlier this year Moscow branded Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation an “extremist organisation”, putting its leader at risk of a further 10 years in jail. Members who are still in Russia could be imprisoned for up to six years. Navalny is banned from state television; until he returned to Russia following his poisoning, the Kremlin would not even dignify his existence by naming him. His earlier conviction also means he’s not allowed to run for president. Still, at least three-quarters of the population knows who he is. LONDON, Sept 10 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Getting poisoned with Novichok gets you noticed. That’s the unfortunate reason for the world’s increased interest in Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition politician and fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin who almost died last year after ingesting the nerve agent. The 45-year-old blogger and activist has campaigned against Putin for most of the Russian leader’s two decades in power. He’s organised protests, exposed corruption and tried to upset the ruling United Russia party’s success in elections, becoming the central actor in a fragmented opposition which now faces a ruthless government crackdown. After the poisoning his wife took him to Germany for treatment. There he accused individuals working for the Russian security services of trying to kill him. Leaving Russia caused him to break the parole conditions from an earlier conviction he said was politically motivated. Still, he returned. In February he went to prison. In “Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?” academics Jan Matti Dollbaum, Morvan Lallouet and Ben Noble explore the tactics the Yale-educated activist has used to try to shake up Russian politics. He initially borrowed the approach of campaigning investors by buying shares in large Russian enterprises, many of which are state-owned. In a balanced and insightful analysis, the authors describe how he attended the annual general meetings of companies like Surgutneftegaz (SNGS.MM) to ask awkward questions such as “who owns the oil group?” and “why is the dividend so low?” In a 2010 investigation into Transneft (TRNF_p.MM), Navalny claimed at least $4 billion was stolen by people he didn’t name in the state pipeline monopoly’s construction of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. In a rare win, a Moscow court ordered the company to disclose more information in 2011. Unlike U.S. activist investors like Elliott or Third Point, Navalny’s end objective wasn’t to improve the performance of these companies. His aim was to embarrass the people who ran them and focus attention on how much public money was being lost to graft. This approach helped him build an online following, but despite some small achievements, he failed to change how the companies were run or dent the fortunes of those close to Putin. Navalny’s tactical voting strategy has arguably proved more irksome. In legislative elections later this month, for example, his team will tell Russians how to vote if they want to eject the ruling United Russia candidate, even if it means voting for a Communist or another member of the Kremlin-tolerated opposition. United Russia has responded by putting up candidates with the same name, and similar appearance, to Navalny’s choices. An increasingly heavy-handed government crackdown is testament to his effectiveness. Earlier this year Moscow branded Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation an “extremist organisation”, putting its leader at risk of a further 10 years in jail. Members who are still in Russia could be imprisoned for up to six years. Navalny is banned from state television; until he returned to Russia following his poisoning, the Kremlin would not even dignify his existence by naming him. His earlier conviction also means he’s not allowed to run for president. Still, at least three-quarters of the population knows who he is. Name recognition does not translate into popularity, though. Outside observers might expect the charismatic, erudite and witty politician, often flanked by his beautiful family, to have mass appeal. His anti-corruption agenda should resonate, especially when real incomes are dwindling. Yet after Navalny took the brave decision to return to Russia, knowing that he would probably end up in jail, his approval rating fell to just 14% in June. By contrast, more than 60% of Russians approve of Putin, according to Levada Center pollsters. While corruption is a top concern for Russians, they also shrug it off as an unavoidable fact of life. Navalny’s attacks on individual politicians for accumulating assets far beyond the reach of their official salaries caused a stir. Yet even after he released a viral video about an enormous palace on the Black Sea that he claimed belonged to Putin – a claim the Russian leader has denied – the vast majority of those who watched it said their attitude towards the president was unchanged. Meanwhile the Kremlin is tightening the screws on Russia’s free press and other critics. Taking part in unsanctioned gatherings can mean losing everything. While young people are more riled up, they’re also more likely to leave: one in five Russians and almost half of 18- to 24-year-olds want to emigrate, according to a May poll. As the authors explain, the Kremlin has cast Russian politics as an “immoral game of cynics” where everyone is out for themselves. Though Navalny has attracted the attention of ordinary Russians and provoked a near-fatal attack on his life, apathy remains a more powerful force than activism. Follow @dasha_reuters on TwitterONTEXT NEWS - “Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?” by Jan Matti Dollbaum, Morvan Lallouet and Ben Noble was published by Hurst on Aug. 19.